The regulation gives the test behind section 1798.100(c). A purpose must fit what the consumer would reasonably expect, judged by the relationship, the type and amount of data, its source and collection method, how clearly the purpose was disclosed and how visible any service providers or third parties are. A further purpose is compatible only where it is strongly linked to those expectations. Necessity and proportionality are judged by the minimum data needed, the possible harm to consumers and the safeguards in place. Any purpose that fails the test needs the consumer's consent, obtained in the way section 7004 requires and capable of withdrawal, and collecting categories beyond those in the notice at collection requires a new notice.
This control maps to 3 controls across 3 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
CCPA/CPRA CCR 7002 is one control. If you already hold one of the frameworks below, a reviewed crosswalk already says how much of CCPA/CPRA your existing evidence covers. Hold GDPR and 17 of 89 CCPA/CPRA controls already carry evidence.
Each report names every control your existing framework evidences, every one it does not, the reasoning behind each claim, and the claims that were argued against and rejected. 0 were rejected on the GDPR pair alone.
The graph holds this control, the 3 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.